Re: 9/11 conspiracy

He was going to goin anyway he just leveraged a tragedy so public opinion would be higher. It isn't right but that in no way makes him responsible for 9/11

 

(why i am getting involved in this thread i really dont know but no matter what i am not trying to trivialize 9/11 no matter who is responsible) Lichking you are being unreasonable with the demad that everyone must put in a massive amount of research just to have an opinion different from you. And mark words it does look like just an opinion because what you are demanding is what your failing to provide yourself. All you keep bringing up is things that could be a co-incidence. Also if you follow the philosophy innocent until proven guilty you bear the burden of proof because you are to trying to show someone is guilty. If you can supply proof about something then it is the other sides job to disprove it or provide better proof for their argument. But until one side provides some kind of proof all anyone is doing is providing there opinion and the fact you have spent more time finding things that could be co-incidences doesnt make your opinion any more valid than someone elses.

As for my own opinion on this topic im undecided but you really do need to stop attacking people for providing their opinion.

Finally admitedly there are such things as conspiracies there are also such things as co-incidences and without proof neither side can say much its kinda like trying to find the square root of 4 without any supporting information it could be 2 or negative 2. But until we can provide that proof all we can say is it is either 2 or -2.

 

I love how you say nothing about Afghanistan, lichking. Only Iraq.
I'll spell it out for you. The arrows mean "leads to."

9/11 Attacks --> War in Afghanistan
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 --> Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002 --> War in Iraq

Don't confuse me for someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I study these conflicts and all relating material very intensely.

 

It's because you think coincidence is the same thing as conspiracy.

Khalid Sheik Mohammad confessed to being the mastermind of the plot. Are you going to say that he was actually on the government payroll? And if so, what evidence of this do you have.

There are records of the pilot hijackers taking lessons to fly planes and asking specifically if they could fly through the Hudson Corridor which leads right to Manhattan. They also were not interested in learning how to take off or land, just in flying it.

There are records of the muscle hijackers coming into the country starting around April 2001. And there are records of all of these people getting onto these flights and them being the ones reported to have been the hijackers by those on board.

All of these hijackers had at one time been at the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

How do YOU account for all of that?

The burden of proof rests upon you. Innocent until proven guilty. You think the Bush Administration is guilty but you are unwilling to supply any evidence to counter the wealth of proof that it was al Qaeda.

 

i do not say the americans did it, nor do i say that someone else did it, but my main problem is: why do so much things not work out, like the pentagon, the hole was far too small, and the fact that parts from more than 1 plane was found there.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

All you need to know about the plane that hit the pentagon, ijffdrie

 

I usually shy away from political trends now a days, but just my honest 2 cents...

I use to be a Neo-Con, now I'm a Liberal

I wouldn't go as far to say that it is without a doubt a job by the administration, but the evidence I've seen is pretty heavy. I remember watching it when it first happened too and wondered why the building fell so fast. In loose change you can clearly see the building falling faster then it should because "something" happened to the middle support structures.

To ninerman13 thx for that link, I'll check it out... but as for the argument as to why the goverment hasn't killed any of the conspiracy theorists, well the answer is simple. Why? Let people believe they are just talking out of their ass, kill them then non-conspiracy theorists will start to believe them.

 

that site is always really inaccurate, i always look at it for fun, paragon

but i never saw the explanation in that thread for the enginge caps from a military airplane, and maybe i just didnt see it, but did they say why there was so little trash(or was it much, i dont remember)

 

Read it again if you want to find out.

I love how all those who believe the conspiracy theories saying that the government did it just discount any evidence explaining the "problems" the conspiracy theorists "discover" and then they expect people who believe the real story that it was terrorists to accept every coincidence as a conspiracy without actually providing proof.

And specifically to Lipton - how do you know how fast a building should fall when hit by a commercial airliner? I don't recall commercial airliners ever being used against tall buildings before. So, there is no baseline to weigh your accusation against.

Anyways, here is a site that is as credible as they get:
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

 

Edited out quotes. Please read the forum rules and refrain from quoting unnecessarily. Do not a quote just above yours.




We'll I based my opinion on the video shots in the Loose change video, where other buildings shown to have much worst fires (engulfing the entire building) and I've also seen video of buildings after an earthquake, all these buildings never fell till demolition crews arrived to remove them.

Also the way the building fell is practically identical to the way buildings fall when blow up from within by demolition crews. And I've seen buildings demolished lots of times before the loose change video.

big History channel buff


Also again from the Loose change video the Firemen at the scene of 911 and janitor of one of the buildings post 911 talking about them hearing pop pop pop coming from below the building and going up... one Fireman even describes the pops as sounding like a demolition crew.


As far as proof goes, any of us can really only post what others have said or shown.

 

your question is just about the same as mine, from what i read the metal beams are a strong type, at sections of it they found that it was melted, but the problem is jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt thoses beams, you either need to sit there all day with a big fire or use thermite, a mixture of two or more different elements ( i cant remember which elements ) that when it starts to burn the temp. of the fire can get up to 2,000 celsius.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

Blacksmiths heat metal to make it valuable. The iron or steel never fully melts but it becomes surprisingly bendable at half the melting temperature.

Don't believe me? Torch a steel bar til it glows red than see how much force it takes you to bend it
The weight of a building exerts a lot more force than you can

 

no thats not what im talking about, they have found melted beams, they werent heated and broken off , they were totally melted at certain parts when they shouldnt have been.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

 

Hmmm. So a government capable of pulling off the 9/11 attacks and efficient enough to leave virtually no evidence of its involvement in 9/11 could not think of a better way to go to war against Iraq? Do you really think this administration is even competent enough to plan something like this out?

Also, why did the government even bother blaming the attack on Al-Queda? Why not just blame the whole thing on Iraq? The fact that Al-Queda was responsible for the attack, and the fact that there is no evidence linking Al-Queda to Iraq has actually hurt the Bush administration. You'd think that if the Bush administration had planned the attacks, they would at least planted evidence that Iraq and Al-Queda were in league.

I did not and still do not support the invasion of Iraq. I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, and I believe that Bush is a criminal for allowing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to slip through his fingers by refocusing our resources away from Afghanistan and on to Iraq just because he wanted to finish what his daddy started in 91.

 

Thats because we caught the MASTERMIND of the 9/11 plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammad. And he admitted to it and explained the entire operation (with much pride of the fact I might add). When you catch the perpetrator of a crime and that person admits to it, case closed. They don't keep investigating crimes after catching criminals of other crimes. Why do you expect them to do so in this case.

 

Lichking... Bush would not set up something of this scale purely so he has support for a war. He'd just declare the war. It was just convenient (not to mention logical) for him to start the war as soon as he could after September 11, because when else would he do it? No-one in the same position would wait around a while before starting the war. The reason the war in Iraq started after September 11 was because that was the time to strike. It may look as though Bush set it up to gain support, but he merely took advantage of it, then exploited it to gain support.
A similar thing happened in the Cold War in Australia. The Prime Minister (Robert Menzies) was an expert at exploiting the Australian's fear of coming under a Communist Government to win the upcoming election. It happened when a Russian Communist Spy sought out political asylum in Australia because he was scared that he would be executed if he returned to Russia. So he contacted the Australian Government and asked for political asylum in exchange for a list of names of people involved in Soviet Espionage in Australia. Menzies used this to show the Australian public that there was still a huge threat that Communism could spread to Australia. It was this incident that won the election for Menzies. My point is that Menzies did not 'invent' Communism just so that he could win the election, just like how Bush didn't set up September 11 so that he had support to war against Iraq. Both just took advantage of the situation and exploited it. Politicians take advantage of events and exploit them, but they don't create them. Bush could have easily wared against Iraq anyway, but he was able to exploit 9/11 for extra support.

 

Prove this. Post a link to this report. Also, have you thought that the report would mainly be on Tower 1 and Tower 2? Building 7 basically collapsed because of the Twin Towers collapsing on top of it, and it had already been evacuated, so no-one was killed when it collapsed (it did not fall down for 'no reason'), so don't you think that these reports would be more focused on the 2750 who lost their life in Tower 1 and 2?
Also, about the 'bombs' going off, there are so many things that that could have been. It could have been flying/falling debris, it could have been small, internal collapses due to the extra weight falling on top of it, it could have been internal collapses due to fire damage, etc, etc. Also, even if Building 7 was blown up by the American Government, why would they do it? The two main buildings had both fallen down taking thousands of lives with them, so why would they blow up a third building that wouldn't even add to the death toll? They already have their supposed reason to war against Al-Queda, so why would they detonate another building?

If you're still referring to the 'casualties' from Building 7, there were none! Also, you said that the families of the victims who were in the Twin Towers pressured and demanded that bush investigate what happened, and Bush did this. Doesn't sound like they were/are silenced to me, it sounds more like you're contradicting yourself.

There was no-one there to film what happened to the Pentagon. Also, I've heard that most Americans do not know that the Pentagon was targeted as well, because it was censored, because Bush did not want to alarm the people by saying that their Department of Defense was targeted. If Bush wanted an excuse for a war, then he would let everyone know that the Pentagon was also attacked.

What evidence? There was no filming of the Pentagon attack like there was for the World Trade Center. I'm not sure what you're talking about when it comes to this 'evidence'.

You're right for once. But only in that you can't blame the people for questioning it. However the outcome of the questioning and investigations and research is that it was all planned by Al-Queda. There is no evidence, other than the flimsy evidence that conspiracy theorists have come up with, that Bush planned and executed the September 11 attacks.

From what you've said at the beginning, the people were not silenced. Also, when you say 'even i can see that this' and even i feel bad for the victims', why do you say even you? You would use that if you were about the least likely person to believe it, which you are obviously not, because you do believe it.

Bush did not fund Hitler. He had business transactions with German companies. This is completely different to funding Hitler directly. Just because a company that they were doing business with was in Germany, does not make them Nazi's and doesn't mean that he is funding Hitler.

 

So your arguments against mine are that it obviously isn't him even though the general consensus is that it was him and that "people don't talk like that."

[ sarcasm ]
Thats really scientific. I should just convert right now...
[ /sarcasm ]